EPJ Web of Conferences 70, 0 0 039 (2014)

DOI: 10.1051/epjconf/ 2014 7 000 039


C Owned by the authors, published by EDP Sciences, 2014

Transaction and Non Locality in Quantum Field Theory

Ignazio Licata1 , a
1

Institute for Scientic Methodology, Palermo, Italy

Abstract. The most part of the debates on Quantum Mechanics (QM) interpretation
come out from the remains of a classical language based upon waves and particles. Such
problems can nd a decisive clarication in Quantum Field Theory (QFT), where the
concept of classical object is replaced by an interaction networks. On the other hand, it
is simpler to discuss about non-locality in QM than in QFT. We propose here the concept
of transaction as a connection between the QM and QFT language as well as the possibility to introduce quantum non-locality ab initio. We also mention the cosmological
consequence of a non-local archaic vacuum here dened

1 Introduction
Why are people, magazines (and philosophers too) still back to 1927 and talk about waves and particles, while the theoretical physicists talk about quantum eld theory?
Since its appearing Quantum Theory has put radical questions which have challenged not only Classical Physics, but the structure itself of the explanation concept born within the continuous, dynamical and evolutionary western thinking tradition. Lets remember what Rutherford asked to
Bohr: How does an electron know which orbit to jump in? And later Schrdinger If these bloody
quantum jumps exist, Ill regret having studied Quantum Mechanics!. Non-locality problem was
already well put in both statements. Copenhagen Interpretation has hidden - so to say non-locality
behind the statistical machinery of casuality, but after the experimental works by V. A. Rapisarda,
A. Aspect and A. Zeilinger (just to name some), we have to admit that non-locality is at the core
of Quantum Physics and it should be introduced ab initio within the theory structure not as a later
strangeness, but as a fundamental principle. In the same way as the Einsteins Covariance Principle
puts the equivalence between inertial and gravitational mass at the GR foundation. Understanding
the centrality of non-locality could solve the old debate on Quantum Mechanics foundations. A
debate which too often seems to be stopped back to 1927 (nineteen twenty seven), whereas it should
be rather include the most beautiful and ripe fruit of Quantum Mechanics: the Quantum Field Theory,
and Quantum Cosmology too.
The rst one because it is necessary to speak about interactions, considering they are the only object
of our observations, the second one because we need a theory able to tell how quantum vacuum is
switched on and gives birth to some objects and dynamics and not some other ones. That Informational matrix Wheeler called It from (Q) Bit [18]
a e-mail: ignazio.licata@ejtp.info

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article available at http://www.epj-conferences.org or http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/20147000039

EPJ Web of Conferences

Since the non-local correlations do not transport energy, they do not violate Relativity. This situation
goes under the name of peaceful coexistence between Relativity and Quantum Physics and has
suggested that the unication between QM and GR can happen within a geometro-dynamic program
inspired to the GR philosophy, where the QM could be incorporated as a conformal deformation
of space-time.The geometric approaches to quantum processes are based on Quantum Potential and
Weyls geometry, using a modication of the Weyl-Dirac theory [19, 16, 14, 13]
In spite of some interesting results, actually, once again, things are not so simple. Non-locality remains
a phenomenon that rests uncomfortably on a mechanical vision of the universe. As Heisenberg
observed at the dawning of quantum theory, the quantum events are radically a-causal, and cannot
therefore be retraced into the traditional Einsteinian space-time arena, however extended it may be.

2 The particle concept from a Quantum Field Theory Point of View

The Quantum Field Theory is the mature daughter of QM and the most general syntax we know to
describe forces. It replaces the hard nave particle of classical physics and QM with a network of
interactions. It greatly modies the traditional vision of permanent object. Lets remember some
essential points:
a) The physical world is described as a discrete net of interaction vertices where some properties (space-time position, quadri-impulse, spin, etc.) are destroyed and created. Such properties
measurement is all that we know of the physical world from an operational view point. Any other
construction in Physics like the continuous space-time notion itself or the evolution operators has
the role to causally connect the measured properties. So we can say they are emergent with respect
to the network of events;
b) Heisenberg uncertainty principle in its more general and right QFT form- , phase for number
of quanta, n h does not indicate the limits of measurement between classical variables, but
the applicability limit of the continuous space-time concept. In phenomena involving a few number
of potential impacts (interaction vertices) the representation of the eld as a continuous propagation
in a space-time environment is no more applicable [see 15, 12];
c) Motion is no more a continuous phenomenon, but a discontinuous process in the spacetime coordinates. The are no more objects as exclusive bearers of permanent qualities. QFT
introduces by the discontinuity and the relativistic invariance non-locality as a basic ingredient.
The propagation of physical quantities in the space-time appears more similar to the phenomenon of
switching on a line of blinking bulbs, or dislocation in a crystal.
If, in a quantum leap, the quantum state i is destroyed and the new quantum state j is created
the element X(i,j) of the physical quantity X is involved. Only when the matrix X(i,j) is diagonal the
interaction will leave the X value unchanged and that leap can then be considered as a measurement
of X. So the quantum laws have generally a matrix-like form and it also follows the existence of
quantities not simultaneously dened. This frame modies quite widely the semi-classical vision
associated to QM.
On the other hand, lets remember that the heuristic vision of the quantum as a particle was introduced by Einstein (photoelectric eect) and later reprised by Compton (electron/photon scattering),
but it has no citizenship in the original Planck formulation, where it is already more similar to a transaction, as well as, indeed, in the quantum jump of the later atomic theory. As a matter of fact, quantum
jump has been the rst genuine non-locality manifestation in Physics.
According to such view there is no strangeness in the Afshar Experiment [1]
Afshar objective was to confute the complementarity principle, a Bohr philosophical invention useful
in the early QM formulation, by modifying the double slit experiment and individuating a situation

00039-p.2

ICFP 2012

where the photon propagation shows both corpuscular and ondulatory features. Anyway Afshar insisted in the possibility to individuate what slit the photon had passed and everybody was concerned
in demolishing such statement [see for ex. 13, 17].
From the QFT viewpoint it is easy to consider Afshar experiment as a ondulatory-corpuscular mixed
situation typical of the eld modes, and in this sense, as J. Cramer stated, it can actually be considered
a farewell to Copenhagen.

3 What interpretation of QM in the Light of QFT ?

The most part of Quantum Physics Interpretations persists in deriving non-locality from local situations by using continuous concepts such as space-time or the environment, so running the risk to sail
along the ether ghost or paradoxes avouring of Alice in Wonderland.
The ondulatory language and statistical interpretation can work only when a great number of (even
virtual) interaction vertices is involved. For example, the ground state of an hydrogen atom is really a
sort of average on many virtual interactions between the nuclear electric eld and the orbital electron;
this undergoes to many virtual destructions/creations and QM electron is really the conserved net
result of these processes. In this sense QM is a good approximation of QFT for systems at low energy
when the number of quanta is conserved. In QFT the eld of a single electron becomes the eld of
the whole Universe electrons, and its second-quantized wave function can admit dierent numbers
of electrons and can have a superposition between states with dierent number of particles. This
conrms that particles are not persistent objects but networks of transactions.
Now lets try to understand what kind of reading of the QM is xed by QFT. Following Penrose
terminology, the QM structure is given by U (evolution operators) and R (clicks or single events),
and its so-called foundational problems come out from the diculty to connect U and R. In particular,
R collapse has often been regarded as the Euclids fth postulate for the impossibility to derive
it from U. An alternative way is to conciliate complementary U and R by means of the famous pilot
wave , which leads to the well-known problems with the meaning of . We know, from QFT,
that the physical world is a net of energetic transitions and our speaking of waves/particles is only an
approximated language .
The reading of QM which best ts this approach is the new transactional theory [5]. Its rst version,
owed to Cramer [6], regarded the non-local connection as a handshaking between anticipated and
delayed potentials a la Wheeler-Feynman, which thing arouse a lot of mathematical and conceptual
problems connected to the still too classical context. Intuitively the idea was quite simple: each
particle responded to all of its future possibilities. It is obviously a space-time language. In the new
version no complication of this kind comes out, just some simple rules about the transactions opening
and closing, so to x in univocal way the evolution operators. Actually, at a fundamental level only
the transactions between eld modes take place, and the wave-function simply reveals as a statistical
coverage of a great amount of elementary transitions.
We can imagine the Vacuum not only as an eigenstate of minimum energy, but also the network of all
the possible transactions of the eld modes in an undivided Oneness, and it has to be regarded as
a radical non-local and event-symmetric state [2]. Planck constant is then the measure of the fabric
elasticity. The vacuum constrains and conveys the dynamical processes we observe. It is a fabric
from which patterns emerge by R processes and such patterns inuence the vacuum activity, in a
quantum feedback. On this basis we can think that in the future the Bells Theorem not only will tell
us the limits of hidden variables theories, but will be the cornerstone of a theory able to explain nonlocality as a residual eect, in particular conditions, from the manifestations of the primeval vacuum.
The laboratory non-locality appears as a particular case of this atemporal wholeness.

00039-p.3

EPJ Web of Conferences

4 A short glance inside transactions, or: how to introduce non-locality in

QFT
QFT language is centered on elementary terms which are the creation and destruction operators.
Starting from such terms we build the commutation and anti-commutation relations which determine
the single eld features (for ex. fermionic or bosonic ones). Then the Hamiltonian describing the
evolution of the free elds and the interacting ones are introduced. The transactional proposal does
not touch such scheme, but xes the general condition to introduce non-locality at the heart of QFT.
Speaking in a more general way, we shall have at t = t1 the event of the creation-destruction of a
quality Q(| Q >< Q |) and at t = t2 the event of the creation-destruction of a quality R(|R><R|) These
two processes will be linked by a time evolution operator S according to the ring:
|Q >

< Q| t = t1

S S+
|R > < R| t = t2
In other words, | Q > is transported from S into | Q > and projected into < R |, | R > is transported by
S + into | R > and projected onto < Q |. The amplitudes product :
< R|S |Q >< Q|S + |R >= | < R|S |Q > |2
is immediately obtained, which is the probability of the entire process. If quality Q is constituted by a
complete set of constants of motion then R = Q and this is the type of process which can describe the
propagation of a photon-type quantum, otherwise it is the generic process of the creation of a quality
Q causally linked (by means of S ) to the destruction of a quality R. Moving to the representation of
the coordinates, by substituting bras and kets with wavefunctions, we once again obtain as a particular
case the result already seen with the well know Schredinger non-relativistic expressions.
From an algebraic point of view, the transactional ring is a sort of identity operator, because S S + =
S + S = 1 and the qualities Q, R are simultaneously created and destroyed. This is the by now classic
case of EPR and GHZ phenomena. One has the impression that every quantum process (therefore all
matter) and time itself are emitted from an invariant substratum and re-absorbed within it. We propose
to call such substratum archaic vacuum to distinguish it from the QFT traditional dynamic vacuum
and to indicate all the self-consistency logical constraints which rule the fabric of reality.
As an example of a transactional network, let us consider a well known process in QFT, constituted
by the decay of a microsystem, prepared in the initial state 1, into two microsystems 2, 3 which are
subsequently detected. The preparation consists of destroying the quality 1 [which we shall indicate
by ( 1 |] which closes the transaction which precedes it, and creating the quality 1 [which we shall
indicate by |1)] which opens a new transaction. It will be represented by the form |1)(1|.
The decay consists of destroying the qualities 2, 3 which close the transaction started at the preparation
state, and creating the qualities 2, 3 which open a new transaction which will be closed at the detection
of microsystems 2, 3.We represent it by the form [| 2)|3)][(2|(3|].
The detection of microsystems 2, 3 will be made by the destructions of qualities 2, 3 which close
the transaction started at the decay, and by the creations of qualities 2, 3 which open subsequent
transactions. It will be represented by the interaction events |2)(2|, |3)(3| .
The double transaction here described corresponds to the process usually associated to the probability
amplitude < 2, 3 | S | 1 > .
Another example is Youngs classical double slit experiment. The preparation of the particle initial
state can be represented by the form | 1 )( 1 |, following the same reasoning as above. Instead of the

00039-p.4

ICFP 2012

decay, here we have the crossing of slits 2 and 3, i.e. the interaction between a particle and a double
slit screen represented by [| 2 )| 3 )] [( 2 |( 3 |]. Instead of the detection of the two particles created in
the decay, here we only have the detection of the particle on the second screen at a certain position
4, i.e. : |4)(4 |. Two transactions are involved: the rst starts with the preparation of the particle and
ends with its interaction with the rst screen; the second begins with this second interaction and ends
with the interaction of the particle with the second screen. The second interaction then constitutes
the beginning of the following transaction. The process is that which corresponds to the probability
amplitude < 4 | S | 1 >.
We note that the forward time evolution of the amplitudes, represented by S | 1 >, contains both the
kets | 2 > , | 3 >; nevertheless, processes relating to the passage through the individual slit a(where
a= 2, 3) do not exist. Such processes would require an intermediate event represented by |a)(a|,
which actually does not take place. It is in this sense that the processes which could be associated to
compound probability amplitudes < 4 | S | a >< a | S | 1 > are virtual and not real. The process of
the crossing of one of the two slits becomes real when the other slit is closed.

5 Quantum Pre-Space in de Sitter Cosmology

The description of the relation between vacuum and its manifestations is provided by Bohm theory of
holomovement between explicate and implicate order [3]. It is the passage, which can be formalized
by Green operator and Wick Rotation , from the timeless non-local to the time and local in a continuous feedback. It is important to understand that holomovement does not happen in the time but
gives origin to the space-time itself by the activity of the transactions. From the denition of holomovement in terms of Green function it is easy to derive the Heisenbergs form of the Schrdinger
Equation [7].
The irreducible nature of a single event - irreducible for the statistical interpretation justies the
introduction of casuality. It is the quantum active information inaccessible in the explicate order
which prevents us from following the single event [9]. Thanks to non-locality, the quantum casuality
becomes intelligible, but not less radical. Einstein was right, and Bohr too!!!
There are many images and famous metaphors, more or less mathematical, to indicate the relation
between implicate and explicate order, such as the hologram one. Here we have chosen a Mandelbrot
fractal to remember the dierence between dynamical causality in the explicate order and formal
causality in the implicate order. The non-local features are linked to the second one, as the initial
condition in cosmology.
Cosmology is not a separate branch of Physics, but the global history of matter. It is the logic activation
of vacuum in the primeval informational matrix and the formal causality that switches on and guides
the evolution of the physical world. On the other hand, we cannot avoid asking what the vacuum global
form is and what kind of global/local relations it rules.
The old Big Bang conception as a thermodynamic balloon seems to be irreparably compromised
by now. We just quote here the Author and L. Chiatti work on Archaic Universe where the starting
point is the group approach to the DeSitter Universe as quantum vacuums geometrical shape [10,11].
The elimination of the initial singularity by the adoption of de Sitter 5 hyper-sphere as pre-space
makes possible a very concise description of the boundary conditions necessary for the evolution of
the observed physical universe. Such pre-space we dene as archaic has not to be considered
as antecedent to Big-Bang, but rather as a pre-spatial and a-temporal substrate of the usual spacetime metric containing in nuce all the evolutionary possibilities that the General Projective Relativity
(GPR) equations indicate. After eliminating any geometrical singularity with Euclidean substrate, the
description of the Universe evolution can be seen as an extended nucleation from a coherent timeless

00039-p.5

EPJ Web of Conferences

state (de Sitter isotropic singularity) with very high non-local information to an observable mix of
local matter-energy. The passage from the archaic to the evolutionary state is dened by a sort of
holomovement due to a Wick rotation which characterizes the appearance of the dynamics and time
arrow starting from the general constraints on the pre-dynamic, archaic condition. It is remarkable
that the theory acts as an Occam razor on many speculations about dark matter and ination, gives
a purely geometrical description to the cosmological constant and introduces, by the cosmological
constant, new relations between macro and micro-physics as a new kind of cosmological non-locality.
In particolar, the study of transactions in Projective General Relativity has shown the existence of a
minimum time of transaction - similar to Caldirola chronon - of 0 1023 sec..
If this duration exists, all physical phenomena of shorter duration than it must link events which are not
extremes of transactions and which therefore are not R processes. These phenomena must therefore,
according to Penroses terminology, constitute aspects of a U process.
In terms of quantum physics everyday language, the linked events are therefore extreme vertices of
virtual propagations that exist solely as terms of the expansion of the time evolution operator of
the system being studied. In the cosmological approach under consideration, quantum non-locality
leads to cosmological non-locality as a global constrain on the distribution of the creation/annihilation
events on the 5-sphere, which is to say on the physical Universes possible histories. If we would
describe the origin by the language of dynamics, we could say that the thermodynamic equilibrium is
reached in a time equal to the 5-sphere radius divided by c, and then inated to cosmic dimensions, a
description very similar to the inationary mechanism [4].
So to overcome some diculties in microphysics and cosmology it seems to be necessary to introduce
together with the traditional dynamic vacuum an archaic vacuum as the expression of a generative
order of physical reality.

References
[1] S. S. Afshar, E. Flores, K. F. McDonald, E.Knoesel, Found. of Physics 37, 2007 295-305
[2] D. Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, (Routledge, London 1980)
[3] D. Bohm, B. Hiley, The Undivided Universe: An ontological interpretation of quantum theory,
(Routledge, London 1993)
[4] L. Chiatti, in Vision of Oneness, I. Licata and A. Sakaji eds, (Aracne Publ., 2011)
[5] L. Chiatti, arXiv: 1204.6636 (2012)
[6] J. G. Cramer, Int. Jour. of Theor. Phys. 27, 1988 227-236
[7] B. Hiley, in New Structures for Physics, B. Coecke ed (Springer, 2011)
[8] R. Kastner, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 36(4), 2005 649-658
[9] I. Licata, in Physics of Emergence and Organization, I. Licata and A.Sakaji eds, (World Scientic
2008)
[10] I. Licata, L. Chiatti, Int. Jour. of Theor. Phys., 48(4), 2009 1003-1018
[11] I. Licata, L. Chiatti, Int. Jour. of Theor. Phys., 49(10), 2010 2379-2402
[12] I. Licata, in Vision of Oneness, I. Licata and A. Sakaji eds, (Aracne Publ., Rome 2011)
[13] I. Licata, D. Fiscaletti, Int. Jour. of Theor. Phys., Online, DOI: 10.1007/s10773-012-1245-0 2012
[14] M. Novello, J. M. Salim, F. T. Falciano, IJGMMP 8(1), 2011 87-98
[15] G. Preparata, in An Introduction to a Realistic Quantum Physics, (World Scientic, 2002)
[16] A. Shojai, F. Shojai, Classical and Quantum Gravity,, 21(1), 2004 1-9
[17] O. Steuernagel, Found. of Phys., 37(9), 2007 1370

00039-p.6

ICFP 2012

[18] J. A. Wheeler, in Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information, W. Zurek ed,(AddisonWesley, Redwood City 1990)
[19] W. R Wood, G. Papini, in The Present Status of Quantum Theory of Light, S. Jeers, S. Roy, J.
P. Vigier , G. Hunter eds, (Springer 1996)

00039-p.7